Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #14318

Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit.

Show all headers | View raw

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:08 +0200, Schugo
<schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

>On 26.07.2025 20:21, micky wrote:
>> This is about Google search more than about Firefox, but I don't know
>> what other active ng would be more appropriate than this one, And I
>> would think you are all interested, even concerned about stuff like
>> this. 
>> 
>> Someone on Nextdoor got a text supposedly from the local gas and
>> electric company, BGE, wanting to do maintenance inside her house.  The
>> number to call was 855-470-8800.   I googled that number and the first
>> hit I got was
>> https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams
>> Yet that number does not appear in the article.  Why was it listed in
>> the search results?  
>
>Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit.
>It's 100% serving their advertisers pages.
>Plus shitty AI summaries optimized for advertisers.
>Except the search is something very special programming
>related.
>I searched "Waesserhaegl" a 90s metal band and the first
>3 pages showed me "Wasserhahn" (Water tap) compainies that
>sell "Wasserhans"...

You know there is an easy remedy for that.  Include -watertap in your
search terms, or maybe -water .  Or add   band .  Or   metal band  . 

In other circumstances, people would like it that they don't have to
spell words exactly right. 

I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to
scroll down to get to what I want to see.  Although google AI uses an #
sign to point to the actual webpage from where they reached their
"concludsions".   Chat GPT doesn't do that. (I only checked twice out of
curiosity.  I don't use it.) 

And I believe the individual page summearies wwhich I've used from the
beginning use a rudmentary AI. 

And in the thread I just started at 2PM ET today, it looks like they've
used some sort of AI to include an article about scams that doesn't even
include my only search term, a phone number. 
>
>it's a complete fuckup, nothing like 20-25 years ago.
>
>ciao

Back to alt.comp.software.firefox | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OT by some standards.  Getting a google hit that is not a hit.  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 14:21 -0400
  Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 20:28 +0200
    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 14:43 -0400
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 19:52 +0100
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 15:19 -0400
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-07-26 17:24 -0400
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 23:51 +0200
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 00:05 -0400
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 23:50 +0200
    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Sam Pichai <Sam.Pichai@gmail.com> - 2025-07-26 20:14 +0000
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 22:45 +0200
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 20:47 +0000
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 22:55 +0200
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-07-26 16:18 -0500
  Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 19:42 +0100
    Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 15:18 -0400
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 20:26 +0100
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-11-14 23:14 -0500
      Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 22:25 +0200
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 20:45 +0000
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 23:55 +0200
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-26 15:51 -0700
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 22:58 +0000
            Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 22:53 +0000
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2025-07-26 22:58 +0000
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 00:36 -0400
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-27 07:02 +0000
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 11:52 -0400
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-27 16:20 +0000
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-28 22:06 -0400
                Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-29 04:22 +0200
              Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-27 14:40 +0200
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 23:54 +0200
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-26 15:46 -0700
        Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-27 08:41 +0100
          Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 11:55 -0400
  Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 20:50 +0200

csiph-web